Is Russia making preparations for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine?

The Russia of Vladimir Putin has a habit of telegraphing its intentions ahead of time.  Putin's foreign policy and its imclusion of Russia's military in one way or another, is all about aggression against his neighbors, intimidation, and force projection.  Although most analysts are closely monitoring Russian  military activity in Syria and on its borders with Ukraine, the truth is, every move Putin makes is primarily directed against the United States.  Sadly, everything Putin wants, he gets.  The United States has such week, reactive policies regarding Russia, that Putin must be very tempted to push the envelope one more time before the Obama Administration leaves office.  In fact, the recent Russian military buildup on its borders with Ukraine has all the indications of a full-scale imvasion.  It not only fits the Putin mold, but it makes sense geo-politically, at least in the way Putin has played the game lately.  One of the few cards we have left to play against Russia is our membership (and stewardship) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  This military force presents Putin with a potential enemy which would be very difficult to defeat with a conventional force.  There was a time when NATO was discussing a possible membership invitation to Ukraine, which would have really pissed off the folks in the Kremlin.  No doubt Ukraine, for defensive reasons alone, would have quickly accepted any such formal invitation, but no one in Kiev is waiting for the mail these days.  All Putin had to do was diplomatically complain and threaten a bit to put to flight the idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO.  Since then, Putin has demonstrated that Russia now calls the shots.  At one time, the Baltic Republics showed an interest in NATO, bit that issue has been run off the table as well.  The worst casualty of the willingness to let Russia dictate policy has to do with defensive strategy in Eastern Europe.  There was a time when NATO intended to deploy a missile shield in Poland and other Eastern European nations.  This device, if it operated as intended, ideally would destroy any missiles fired from Russia into Eastern Europe.  The Russians had no answer to the missile shield, so they threatened and blustered until that option also appears to now be off the table.  Why is Putin allowed to maneuver with such impunity?

On August 7, Russia issued formal complaints against Ukraine, accusing Kiev of attempting to either invade Crimea (!) or of trying to destabilize upcoming elections.  As proof, Russian television broadcast video of a handful of ragged so-called Ukrainian guerillas and a small cache of explosives and ammunition.  Staying true to their M.O., the Russian military was simultaneously building up its forces on its borders with Ukraine.  From August 7 -12, the Russian military deployed additional air and naval units, ground forces and military hardware on the border with Ukraine.  We believe this new military posture from Moscow is an indication that Russia intends to invade Ukraine before the Obama Administration leaves office, and a potentially less pliant government takes the reigns of power in DC.  Putin has everything to gain and nothing to lose.  The Ukrainian Army is in dire need of new equipment, parts, ammunition and training.  The Air Force appears to be in even worse shape.  The Obama Administration has continually refused repeated requests from Kiev for assistance, although some U.S. personnel have been detached to assist in training the Army.  Russia will steamroll the Ukrainian military, and the leaders of Europe, who follow behind Obama like a line of baby ducklings, will convene to discuss what sanctions to impose on Moscow.  Putin will permenantly eliminate the troublesome Ukrainians and their flirtation with NATO, the Baltic States will be cowered into acquiescence.

During the last 8 years, no matter what the issue or location, Russia has dictated the end game.  In Turkey, President Erdogan used the recent coup attempt that he very likely supported himself, to quash any pro-west sentiment, and then made nice with Putin.  Turkey's membership in NATO hangs in the balance, as do the missiles NATO has positioned in Turkey which are, we assume, aimed at Russia.  With Turkey and the Kremlin now best-of-friends, how safe are the U.S. military personnel still based in Turkey?  What about the U.S. military installations and aircraft?  All the while, U.S. foreign policy remains exactly how it was left by former Secretary of State Clinton: as a reactive, useless waste of taxpayer's money.  The only time we see Secretary Kerry is when he is stuck behind a bunch of media microphones, trying to explain how the ransom used to free U.S. hostages in Iran wasn't actually ransom, but part of a larger effort to repay Iran for a broken arms deal in the 1970s.  Sorry for straying a bit off-topic, but why are we repaying Iran for ANYTHING?  They remain the world's largest supporter of terrorism, so you can imagine where that money will end up.  This arms deal was in the 1970s; has Iran offered to compensate the family of U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer, who was killed by Iranian agents in 1985?  Has Iran paid any compensation for destroying our Embassy in 1979 and taking over one hundred Americans hostage?  Why is U.S. foreign policy always about placating the bad guys, Russia included?

I have no idea how either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will deal with Vladimir Putin.  As Secretary of State, in 2010 Hillary Clinton negotiated and signed the disasterous New Start Treaty with Putin, and Trump has praised Putin, seeming to not recognize the danger the Kremlin presents today.  Hillary has had her shot; I would rather take a chance on a new approach than continue the crippling foreign policy of the Obama Administration.  

Dont be surprised if Russia's current strategy in Syria looks familiar.....

Of all the things I can say about Vladimir Putin, you'll never hear me accuse him of abandoning a winning strategy.  Russia has no hesitation whatsoever in repeating tactics in Syria that have proven effective elsewhere, as on this occasion, Ukraine.  Putin understands his opponent well, and can predict his next move.  Unfortunately for us (the good guys/gals), Putin's opponent at present is Barack Obama and his State Department, under Secretary of State John Kerry.  During the current conflict in Ukraine, Putin has used the tool of diplomacy to win engagement after engagement, without ever firing a shot.  The entire situation in Ukraine would be a farce, if it weren't so tragic.  Let's be frank, shall we?  Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, a province of the Republic of Ukraine.  To confuse the issue and distract, Putin created a separatist movement in eastern Ukraine.  Even Putin was caught by suprise by how quickly the European powers and the United States (which calls the shots for NATO), immediately backed down to Russian aggression and begged for Russia and the separatists to  negotiate.  Why did Europe and the West fold so quickly?  The answer lies with the Oval Office of the United States of America.  After winning the 2008 presidential election, the European leaders fought over who was going to fete the first African-American President of the United States.  It was a huge occasion in Paris, Berlin and London.  Not only could Obama do no wrong socially, but he was given carte blanche with foreign policy as well.  Since his inauguration, Obama has controled the foreign policy decisions of just about every European nation.  Under normal circumstances, I would consider this development to be prudent, but not under President Obama, who will negotiate himself out of his own underwear, if he gets a chance.  Obama seems to believe that showing any strength and momentum in foreign policy is somehow an embarrassment, or an innapropriate expression of aggression.  Today is April 30, 2016- after almost eight years of Obama's foreign policy (including a first-term with the worst Secretary of State in memory, Hillary Clinton), terrorism is present on almost every continent, the number of nations either researching nuclear weapons or actually building them has doubled, and right-wing political movements are threatening to take over European governments in the next elections.  The Obama Administration has had no proactive policy regarding ANY foreign policy issue.  The war in Syria has been raging for over five years; why wasn't the U.S. State Department advising our allies in Europe (especially Turkey and Greece) about the likelihood of refugees?  Not to mention the Arab Spring...why were our diplomats so woefully unprepared for the explosion of this political movement, Madame Secretary of State Clinton?

So we return to Syria, where Russian President Putin and his stoolies in Damascus and Teheran are able to implement their plan to use the ISIS emergency to further their efforts at political expansion.  Iran has long dreamed of two, apparently impossible dreams: to be the strongest nation in the Persian Gulf region, and to possess atomic weapons.  Thanks to two terms of Barack Obama, and both dreams are soon to be reality.  Because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi army was prepared to defend itself, ISIS marched in, swallowed up Mosul, Arbil and Tikrit, and threatened Baghdad.  In come the Iranians, playing the role of "advisors" and "instructors", and several Shi'a militias take the field of battle and fight ISIS to a stalemate, until the Iraqi army is prepared to fight its own battles.  The Iranians were given the opportunity to be the heroes, the brave soldiers who defeated ISIS.  Currently, Iran has more resources at play in Iraq than the United States.  Iran has also taken to the battlefield against ISIS in Syria.  Iran has traditionally supported the quasi-political religious movement "Hezbollah" in Lebanon.  Iranian volunteers are fighting ISIS in Syria as part of Hezbollah's military support for de facto Syrian President and Putin puppet Bashar al-Assad.  Obama's unwillingness to get anywhere near U.S. troops on the ground is well-known to Putin and his Syrian and Iranian pigeons.  Russia and Iran have moved into the vacuum created when the Obama Adminstration telegraphed its unwillingness to use the military for diplomatic obligations.  And our enemies have taken full advantage.

Whenever new negotiations are announced regarding either Syria or Ukraine, you can rest assured the Russians are planning large-scale military operational activity, either by Russian proxies or by the Russian military itself.  If a Republican president is elected this November, it will be interesting to see how much of the Obama approach to foreign policy is adopted, or left behind.  As for the Democrats, lets not even consider the nightmare of a President Hillary or President Sanders.

The Cease Fire in Syria suspiciously resembles the Cease Fires in Ukraine.

Although U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry put a great deal of effort and time into the crafting of the February 12 Syrian Cease Fire Agreement, he made every effort to downplay expectations.  As much as I was disgusted with Kerry's direct involvement in last year's nuclear "research" treaty between Iran and the West, there can be no doubting the man's energy or his desire to succeed.  But Kerry is a victim of his own personality.  He has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to trust anyone who wants to sign a treaty, regardless of prior experience or suspicious motivation.  Kerry is probably a good man at heart, and wants very much to believe that one expression of trust and compromise will be met with trust and compromise.  He has staked his reputation and the long-term security of the Persian Gulf to this hope.  I see things a bit differently.  I strongly believe in giving the benefit of the doubt, until proven wrong.  Kerry and the Obama Administration seem content to ignore the never ending violations of treaties by Iran and Russia, I can only assume with the idea that THIS TIME they will be true.  Early on in the Ukraine conflict, I was prepared to agree to Cease Fires and dialougue with the Donbas separatists and their Russian masters, but after one violation after another, followed up by the annexation of the Ukrainian province of Crimea, I wouldn't have trusted Russian President Vladimir Putin to fart in the right direction, let alone follow through on diplomatic obligations.  As for the Iranians, thirty-five years of direct financial and military support to terrorist organizations around the world, not to mention the Saddamesque difficulties Iran has had following through on United Nations agreements regarding their nuclear program, should not put any U.S. Administration in the mood to trust Iran.  The real tragedy is, that everyone involved, including President Barack Obama, realize that Iran will have a nuclear weapon with five-to-seven years.  Actually, I don't think this truth has reached Secretary Kerry.  His trust in the good-nature of our enemies is disturbingly consistent and a whole lot pathetic.

Back to Syria and the February 12 Cease Fire; it appears that almost all of those who signed on to the Cease Fire have followed through with their commitment.  Then why do we continue to have a daily body count in the hundreds?  The answer is simple.  Since Russia began its little adventure rescuing Bashar al-Assad from certain doom, almost all military action has been directed at Assad's internal Syrian opposition.  True, In the beginning, Putin assured the world that Russia's only interest in Syria was to destroy the evil monster ISIS.  In truth, since boots-on-the-ground, the Russian military has worked in lockstep with Assad's regime forces to obliterate Assad's internal opposition.  By the way, that opposition includes groups that are supported by the United States and Europe.  Russian jets are bombing the hell out of forces that have been acting on our behest. Where is the outrage?  Where is the quick response?  Buried in the ground next to Ronald Reagan, I guess.  Putin is masterful at diplomatic chess, but let's face it, he hasn't had to break a sweat on this one.  Russia enters the conflict to resurrect their puppet and destroy his opposition.  A few months following Russia's entry into the fight, Putin announces his support for a "Cease Fire".  And it wasn't even Vlad's birthday.  While Merkel, Hollande and Kerry congratulate each other in public, there is some serious sweating taking place behind closed doors.  Why?  Because Russia and Assad have yet to actually follow through on the Cease Fire.  In fact, with all the other combatants (save ISIS) laying down their weapons, Russian bombing raids and Syrian regime armor attacks are ratcheting up the body count.  With another ten months to go of Secretary Kerry and the Obama Administration's ambiguous foreign policy, expect to see Assad back in control in Syria.  No doubt the Russians will eventually be obliged to confront ISIS head-on and push them out of Syria in order to allow Assad to restart with a Coup de Torchon.  No problem for ISIS; Iraq isn't going anywhere.

Things in Russia are beginning to seem ominous.

I'm a coin collector.  I love the idea of touching an old sea-salvaged Spanish Real and trying to imagine whose hands had held it previously.  Normally, I focus my coin collecting on French coins, as France has a history of creating interesting coin profiles (and I'm half-French).  Yesterday at the coin shop I frequent, I noticed six 20-franc Gold coins for sale.

National Museum of American History.

When my friend behind the counter told me how much they would cost, I realized that gold had dramatically increased in price (per ounce).  Why am I boring you with all of this background?  Because the price of gold usually ebbs and flows with the price of crude (not always).  The price of oil continues to drop, with many analysts not willing to offer a clue as to when it might reverse the trend.  Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has benefitted tremendously from its oil deposits.  At times it seemed that the West had nothing to leverage against Russia and its vast amount of crude and natural gas.  A number of former Soviet-bloc nations are dependent on imports of Russian fuel, and the Russians have made it obvious that they are not above freezing people to win a diplomatic stalemate.  But today the situation is vastly different.  The Russian economy is in a crisis.  The sanctions regime applied to Russia by the EU countries and the United States, to protest Russia's interfering with the sovereignty of Ukraine, has really left a mark, as they say.  Russia's commodities-based economy is drying up, as the supply of oil shows no letdown.  In many ways, Russia is dependent on money created by its oil industry.  Russia may have been able to survive the oil glut, and they may have made it through the sanctions regime as well. But can Russia survive both at the same time?

Now that we have reviewed the current situation, what actions might Russia take in response to its difficulties?  There is concern that, taking a page out of the Argentinean military junta's actions in 1982 (Falklands War), Putin might attempt to distract the Russian people from the economic crisis by

starting a war.  Russia already has two going; would Putin consider adding a third?  The Baltic states have been a present just waiting to be opened by Russia for some time.  Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are tempting for a number of reasons: the Soviet Union occupied all three over 50 years, and settled Russian families in all three nations.  Also, none of the Baltic states has an armed forces to make the Russian military even hiccup.  In fact, NATO has been talking about not only bringing in the three as new members, but also deploying NATO forces (in a purely defensive posture) to these countires.  Just the thought of U.S. tanks in Riga, Tallinn, and/or Vilnius (OK, I admit it; I had to look up one of them!) sends the Russias into a furor.  The real question is, if Russia were to create some event of international mischief, how would that help with its economic crisis?  It can be argued that "a nice little war" can do wonders to jump-start an economy, but I don't think that applies in this instance.  Also, maybe a war close-to-home would invigorate the masses with nationalist fervor, which would spread to include an increase in manufacturing hours, a decrease in time-off, more money spent domestically and on government savings bonds, etc.  No matter how I look at it, though, I just can't see it happening.  The world is so different as opposed to when it was possible to use an international event to restart an economy.  In truth, I don't think that Russia can afford another war at this point.  Russia can't redirect its economy overnight.  The Russians desperately need oil to reverse itself, or, after they have successfully returned Assad to power, I predict that Russia will pull out of the war against ISIS.

Mookie Baby's own State of the Union post:

In light of today's auspicious event, the final State of the Union address for President Barack Obama, I decided to save everyone some time, and help a few others from falling asleep as they sit in front of their televisions.  I have written my own State of the Union address  It is direct, to the point, brutally honest, and written in bullet-fashion to point out that it doesn't take two hours and pages of useless political obfuscation and subterfuge to deliver one of these addresses.  Granted, a whole bunch of folks are going to be angry with my conclusions.  But I stand by every point I make, and I can back it up with facts, baby.  The failures of the Barack Obama Presidency were destined.  Obama if anything is a dedicated ideologue whose enmity for our nation's history and traditions was evident from the start.  Remember the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's comment, "America's chickens are coming home to roost"?  They certainly have, Jeremiah.

State of the Union, 2016:

* In seven years, the National Debt has increased over 100 percent, to at least ten trillion dollars.  What exactly have we purchased that came with such a high price tag? 
* Persons who have been unemployed for more than two consecutive years and no longer look for work are not included on the monthly labor statistics released by the Obama Administration.  Real job creation is anemic.  Not once in seven years has this Administration told the American people the truth about our employment situation.
* Race relations in America are the worst that they have been in my lifetime.  Our first black president has made no legislative or executive effort to address the problems in the black community, including failing schools, high dropout rates, teenage pregnancies, single parents, rampant crime, proliferation of gangs, etc.  Black Americans deserve to live in peaceful communities just as much as the rest of us, but we have seen nothing from this White House in seven years. Interestingly enough, Obama has no trouble finding a cute little black kid to stand nearby while he signs some Executive Action overreach law.
* The Obama Administration has yet to meet a progressive special interest group that it didn't love.  The last seven years  has seen the authority of the Federal Government used to force Christian bakers to bake for lesbians, not to mention the non-stop attack on anything in school that might make mention of a Creator.  Thank goodness Michelle Obama's public school lunch policy is in place, as are those tolerance classes on transgendered folks.  By the way, how about the White House bathed in the colors of the Rainbow Flag on the night of the decision by the Supreme Court?  That was the day I realized just how much trouble we are in.
* In seven years, we have evolved from the world's only superpower to an emasculated, internally confused, self-loathing mess.  It started in 2010, with the disastrous precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and Hillary Clinton's New Start Treaty with Vladimir Putin, which, for all practical purposes, eliminated our last ballistic deterrent/advantage against Russia.  Since then, we've suffered through (stumbled through) the Arab Spring, Benghazi, the Iranian political takeover of Iraq, Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, North Korea's never-ending nuclear research and provocations, China's ability to take unilateral action internationally with no repercussions, rampant terrorism all over the globe, Russia shoving us aside in Syria, and the sponsorship of the nuclear treaty with Iran, which is arguably the worst treaty this nation has ever signed.

The real problem, my friends, is not the list above.  The real problem is, where do we go from here?  First and foremost, we have to ensure that a Democrat does not return to the White House.  Given the "State of the Union" in 2016, I am ASTOUNDED that a Democratic Administration in 2016 is even a possibility.  And if we manage to get a Republican in the White House, who will it be?  I would hope that the average American would recognize that the problems we face are much too dire to trust in the hands of a bullying, misogynist bigot like Donald Trump, but he seems determined to hang around for the long haul.  I can imagine him deciding on whether or not to use our Armed Forces as if he were negotiating a deal on a block of Condos in West Palm Beach.

Addressing our serious problems will be a monumental task.  I find myself wishing that we had Mitt Romney on contract, because his is the kind of honest business mind that we need to find a way out of this unfathomable national debt crisis.  Truly, the debt and our need for real job growth and tax reform, have become issues of national security.  As for ISIS and our international entanglements, I'm convinced that re-establishing our backbone is the best place to start.  Tear-up that useless treaty with Iran (as if they were going to follow-through with their commitments), and welcome Ukraine into NATO.  Flatten all North Korean nuclear research installations, and if you can find Kim Jon-un, drop a 500-lb. bomb in his lap as well.  Those are just a few suggestions.  Let us know how you feel.......  

Five reasons why I'm not voting for Donald Trump.

Links: A. Trump for President Official Site.
           B. Real Clear Politics- Presidential Polls, GOP


I admit it- I'm just as surprised as all the media analysts and talking heads regarding Donald Trump's seeming inevitable March to the GOP nomination.  Immediately following the latest offensive comment, I always expect to see Trump's numbers take a hit.  But if we are to believe the polls, and there are reasons to approach them with a cautious eye, The Donald seems to just build on his advantage.  I've heard the whispers in some Republican conspiratory circles, that the media is doctoring the polls, to create an air of invincibility in Trump.  Why would the media do something to benefit Donald Trump?  Because they realize that when Nov. 2 rolls around, he is the one GOP candidate that Independent voters will have the hardest time supporting over Hillary Clinton.  I can't say that I'm anywhere ready to sign on to that theory, but strangely enough, I'm having trouble finding folks down south in Red State Country, who will openly declare their support for Trump.  But he is getting tremendous support from somewhere.  I don't like Trump, and I'm going to tell you why.

Trump is a "sound bite" candidate if there ever was one.  He makes grandiose announcements, with no follow-up.  Its not difficult to do...just fill the empty air with another sound bite.  Trump will build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it.  And just how will this be accomplished?  I'm not looking for an answer in two sentences, I'm looking for an actual well-thought piece that takes into account all the factors and variables included in public policy.  How much will it cost?  Who will pay for it?  How long will it take to build?  About the mechanics...how will the wall be constructed and with what materials?  Will there be breaks in the wall for Ports of Entry?  Will it be necessary to build the same wall on the Canadian border?  Does Congress need to approve this action?  How will it impact our already existing treaties with not only Mexico, but other Latin American countries? How will this wall impact the environment? Will it destabilize the migratory patterns of wildlife?  I am using one of Trump's more famous pronouncements as an example of his addiction to sound bites.  The questions that I have listed took five minutes to create; I'm sure with a bit of time, experts could come up with quite a few more questions, most with more substance. The reality is, he never has to give an answer.  He has his own version of "Trump Answers", which are dismissive at best and insulting at worst.  You see, Trump thinks that any idea he has must be genius, and if you can't see it well enough to understand all the answers already, then you are an idiot and a moron.  Oh, and you're ugly to boot.  And possibly a pedophile.

Trump believes he can develop a foreign policy based on his business experience.  Nothing personal, Mr. Trump, but one of the reasons I voted for Mitt Romney was because of his business acumen.  But he chose to keep his business credentials where they belonged...in conversations relating to economics.  Trump's forty-year record as a businessman is difficult to really grasp.  He has had his share of successes, and also a few high-profile train wrecks.  But foreign policy must always be more about people than money, more about compromise than victory, and more about friendship than hostile takeovers.  Trump compliments Putin, and says that the Russian leader "is a man I can work with".  I find Putin to be a 21st century fascist, whose actions in Ukraine and Georgia over the past decade show a complete contempt for international law and the integrity of national borders.  Putin is militarizing Russia in the same manner than Hitler did Germany in the 1930s....getting rid of dead-weight, simplification and modernization, and the skirting of international laws and treaties.  I don't admire Vladimir Putin, but if Trump thinks Putin is going to fold like the chairman of some company Trump Enterprises has just swallowed, he has a few surprises coming.  Trump scares me for a number of reasons, including the vision I have of Trump losing his temper because he can't "swing the deal" he wants, and all of a sudden the U.S. military becomes the wild card.

I don't trust Donald Trump.  For some people, maybe that isn't a problem, but it is for me.  I'm not so jaded about our political system that I'm ready to vote for someone that I do not trust.  My lack of trust stems from a simple examination of history.  Just a few years ago, Trump was a Democrat.  Probably a decade ago, he was a Republican, who knows.  I'm sure it made sense at the time, to be on the same side as the political winning side (of the moment).  But Trump professes to be a "life-long Conservative".  How can any life-long Conservative admit to donating money to the Clintons?  As for his claim to being a Conservative, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is certainly "pro-business" (a bit too pro-business for me), but what are his opinions about the other issues that are important to many Conservatives?  Is Trump pro-choice?  What is his opinion regarding the Marriage debate?  More importantly, how often has his opinion on these issues changed?  Personally, I'm not looking for a political ideologue as a candidate.  But with Trump, I'm just sure what I'm getting, and just how far I can throw it.

My final reason for not supporting Donald Trump, is that I don't want a bigot and a misogynist for a president.  I don't think I will ever get past his comments about Carly Fiorina.  What's really sad is that Trump supporters know in their hearts that the only reason he apologized was for political expediency, but yet they don't care....depressing.  Donald Trump is also a first-class Ass Hole.  Excuse my descent into profanity, but for some reason, that title just seems perfect.  He is the perfect example of a school-yard bully, who has spent most of his business career intimidating people with less resources.  Actually, its a bit of a play on the Napoleon Syndrome.  Trump has always bragged about his ability to outspend people; I've never heard him brag about his ability to impact another person's perspective through honest dialogue, have you?  If we are faced with a President Trump, exactly how will he conduct a meeting with a female foreign leader, whose appearance he doesn't appreciate?  Watching Trump respond whenever another candidate improves in the polls is like watching a World Champion Prize Fighter who will stop at nothing to keep the title.  He threatens (usually by bragging about how much money he is prepared to spend), and then he makes good on his threats.  Ben Carson did not lose his momentum because of his lackluster debate performances, he fell victim to nasty accusations regarding the truthfulness of his biography.  A few weeks later, when all the dust had settled, Carson had reasonably addressed all the questions, but the damage was done.  Trump publicly called Carson a liar and compared him to a pedophile.  Of course, it took some time for Carson, a very decent man who lives his life for philanthropy, to come out from under the stench of "liar and pedophile".  But being a jerk doesn't disqualify someone from being president.   

The greatest Presidents in the history of our Republic were able to effectively persuade because of the conviction of their beliefs, not because of the size of their pocketbook.  I'm worried that Donald Trump believes that the President of the United States carries a wallet with the title, "Armed Forces of the United States of America".  And I have no doubt that he would use that wallet unwisely.   

Obama Administration changes backtracks in Syria, stating that regime change is not imperative.

Link:  U.S. accepts Russia's stance regarding Bashar al-Assad.


In a move which reflects the complete collapse of coherent policy in the latter days of the Obama Administration, United States Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. no longer believed that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq.  Until now, the U.S. policy had been squarely behind the conviction that a future, peaceful Syria would not have Bashar al-Assad as it's Chief of State.  In fact, U.S. policy (and money) had been focused on various indigenous Syrian groups who were opposing both the Assad regime and ISIS.  Over the years, Syria has been a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy in the Levant, basically because of the Syrian Ba'ath Party and two men, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar.  Both men ruled Syria as Presidential strongmen, tolerating no opposition, playing any internal opposition of against each other, and declaring "death to Israel" at just about every opportunity.  Syria and the Assad-led Ba'athists had no reason to expect generosity from the United States.  In fact, a good argument can be made that Syria has on more than a few occasions has supported terrorist actions against U.S. civilians and property.  But for some reason, the U.S. State Department chose this week to make up with Assad.  No need to ask why.  The reason the Obama Administration removed its previous insistence that Assad had to go is because the United States Department of State has become unwilling to oppose Russia on any terms.

Earlier this year, the conflict in Ukraine was headline news.  Watching the drama unfold was fascinating, as Russia openly manipulated an emasculated Europe and United States, to solidify its annexation of Crimea and set the stage for further dismemberment of Ukraine down the road.  The only action the Obama Administration was willing to take to confront Russia was the threat of more sanctions.  No doubt the sanctions regime that eventually took hold caused some disruption in the Russian economy, but the Russian people are used to sacrifice, and over the years they have shown their disdain for the use of economics as a weapon; the Germans tried to starve Russia in both the first and second World Wars, and failed miserably both times.  At this moment in time, Putin is running the show.  The EU, NATO, and the United States show no real inclination to stand up to Russian aggression, and the Chinese seem to be content to watch from the sidelines.  Russia intends on destroying ISIS and remaking the Middle East, but according to its designs, which include Iran as a regional superpower.  The disappearance of the United States has been breathtaking.  Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are scrambling to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia as the world's sole superpower.  Putin has laid his cards on the table; he is determined to rewrite the legacy of the Cold War, this time with Russia as the winner.  His timing has been perfect, with U.S. President Barack Obama apparently uninterested in facing down his Russian counterpart.  For the moment, what Russia wants, Russia gets.  In 2016, a new President moves into the Oval Office; will it be too late to set things right again?

Turkey escalates tension between NATO and Russia with the destruction of Russian Su-24 bomber.

Link:  Erdogan stands firm in crisis with Russia.

The crisis in Syria continues to make strange bedfellows, with antagonists being forced to put away grudges to accommodate more pressing matters.  When Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan's party won elections earlier this month, there was real concern that Turkey would move further away from NATO and Europe, and possibly adopt a more friendly approach to Islamist parties and organizations.  Those of us who feared just such a development should be thankful, in our own way, to Russian President Vladimir Putin, for Russia's timely intrusion into the Syrian conflict.  The Russian military has a history of not respecting international borders, and Wednesday's development involving Turkish accusations of an airspace violation, came as no surprise. In fact, since the arrival of the Russian Air Force in the region, there have been complaints from just about every direction regarding Russian lack of respect for international boundaries.  Turkey has been  complaining of Russian border violations almost every day over the past week, and not surprisingly, the Russians continued to use the sky as their personal domain.  Now that the Turks have taken down a Russian bomber that allegedly crossed the Syrian-Turkish border, the Russians are indignantly ratcheting up defensive measures, starting with the deployment of the S-400 air defense system at the Russian Air Base in Latakia.  Russia also announced that a Russian missile cruiser sitting off the Syrian coast wouldn't hesitate to destroy any threat to Russian aircraft. 

Interestingly enough, Erdogan has to tone down his recent anti-Europe, anti-U.S. and anti-NATO rhetoric.  With the Russian military force that is just across the border in Syria growing all the time, Erdogan has no choice but to call upon his NATO allies in this dangerous time.  Although Turkey has a very capable armed forces, and the Russians would have to move night-and-day to transport adequate military personnel and equipment to the region, Erdogan has no intention of standing up to Russia alone.  Putin has already demonstrated his willingness to push the envelope, in Georgia, Crimea, and now in Syria.  Actually, the onset of this mini-crisis provides the United States and Turkey with an important opportunity to mend fences, although Turkey has been the bellicose trouble-maker in the relationship lately.  Even though Erdogan was able to solidify his domestic position with the recent election victory, he has been given a reminder that Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire and the year is not 1560 AD.  Turkey not only needs allies in the west, but Turkey needs its membership in NATO to remain healthy and in good-standing.  Everyday it becomes more obvious that Russia is following through on some grand scheme to increase her influence internationally and to rebuild Russia's relationships around the world, in order to isolate and diminish the United States.  Russia continues to aggressively champion Iran's acceptance as a regional super-power, and leaves no stone unturned in its effort to coax away long-time U.S. allies like Egypt and Jordan.

This conflict is beginning to take on so many different dimensions, that it will become more and more difficult to separate the good guys from the bad guys.  Right now, the world is focused on eliminating ISIS, or at least its pretending to be focused; Russia is still the only major military power who has committed itself to the destruction of this monstrous group (as opposed to "containment").  But I'm beginning to wonder if Russia might actually be the more dangerous of the two.  ISIS invaded two countries: Syria and Iraq.  Russia has invaded three countries: Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, and formerly annexed a province of Ukraine.  If the United States had taken the lead and built a coalition that included ground forces, ISIS would have been defeated by now.  But rethinking past decisions is really a waste of time.  We have to come up with a strategy for what we face today.

Russia attempts to block IMF lending to Ukraine as Russian separatists violate ceasefire.

Link: Russia attempts to disrupt Ukrainian IMF loan.

It took two months for Russian-backed separatists to violate the latest ceasefire in eastern Ukraine.  The only surprise was that the ceasefire lasted as long as it did, but we can probably blame the delay on Russia's current pre-occupation in Syria.  The government of Ukraine and the various Russian-backed separatist groups in the east have agreed to two previous ceasefires, at least by my count.  In every instance, the apparently inevitable violation was committed by the separatists, which begs the obvious question: why does Kiev keep making agreements with these jerks?  Simply put, Ukraine has no choice.  President Petro Poroshenko has yet to implement any personal strategy for resolving this conflict.  Every decision from Ukraine's corner has been made by Kiev's European allies.  Ukraine is in no position to ignore the "advice" put forward by the U.S., French and German diplomats, and we all know that these three would just as soon see Ukraine completely overrun with Russians before agreeing to any type of aggressive military action.  Not that the Ukrainian Army is in a position to conduct a serious offensive in the southeast.  Repeated requests for military aid, to the U.S. in particular, have been denied, as the U.S. strives to encourage a more "peaceful" approach the to crisis.  Russia has taken full advantage of the prostrate policy currently put forth by the Europeans and the Obama Administration to occupy strategic villages and all-but off the vital port city of Mariupol from the rest of Ukraine.  During the last three years, Russia and her surrogates in eastern Ukraine have been able to dictate the time and pace of negotiations and military action to suit Russia's international strategy.  Expect the Ukrainian separatists to step-up military action in an attempt to occupy as much territory as possible before the election of a new, less-accommodating administration following the November 2016 presidential elections in the United States.

It appears that Russia's very recent diplomatic effort to interfere with Ukraine's relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has failed.  Russia has been known for this type of occasional diplomatic overreach, and who  can blame Moscow for trying?  Internationally, Russia continues to court various U.S. allies.  Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to enhanced military ties with the Emir of Kuwait, and Putin's envoy to Afghanistan has announced preparations to sell Hind Attack Helicopters and small arms to Kabul.  Russia has also reached out to Tunisia and Algeria, expressing the desire for increased cooperation in the fight against international terror.  The U.S. Department of State will respond to these overtures with some belated offer of aid or a concession on a trade treaty,  but the real problem for the United States has nothing to do with a Russian agreement with Kuwait or Helicopter sales to Afghanistan.  The fact is, Russia is running diplomatic circles around the U.S., and is showing no hesitation to flirt with long-time U.S. partners.  In the past, the United States would have reacted swiftly to Russian diplomatic advances to an ally by taking the same action.  The Bush or Reagan presidencies might have responded by agreeing to sell weapons to Ukraine, or by increasing the presence of U.S. troops in eastern Europe.  At present, the U.S. has no response to these Russian overtures.  Russia continues to express an interest in forming a security alliance of sorts vis-à-vis Syria, to include the U.S. and its allies.  Washington DC has responded in a positive way to this potential agreement, but many suspect it is nothing more than a Russian distraction.   

Russia and Iran; friends for the moment, or for the distance?

Links: A. Russia making military commitment in Syria.
           B. Russia warming up to Iran is part of broader Russian policy.

Earlier this year, when it became apparent that Barack Obama had ordered U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to successfully conclude a nuclear treaty with Iran, regardless of the sacrifices, there was some confusion regarding the continued closeness of Iran with Russia, who had previously been Iran's closest ally with regards to the nuclear issue.  Was it possible that this new treaty, which was actually signed by a few European nations as well, would usher in a new era of cooperation between the United States and Iran, to the detriment of Russia?  It certainly wasn't likely, and in fact, within days after the agreement was announced, Iranian religious leaders were up to their tired old bullshit of parading around mass quantities of zealots, screaming, "death to America!".  No doubt Vladimir Putin didn't even flinch when news of the treaty reached Moscow.  He had been working on his own strategy in the region, and in this plan, Iran is a major player.

Once Putin realized that U.S. President Barack Obama was content to ride out his last term in office, allowing the nuclear treaty to be his "legacy moment in foreign policy", he crafted a new direction for Russian foreign policy, which if successful, would displace the United States as the world's only superpower, to be replaced by Russia.  The advent of ISIS and Russia's long-time close relationship with de-facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave Putin the perfect opportunity to implement his plan.  Russia would intervene militarily in Syria, and using Assad as a proxy, defeat ISIS.  But Putin had no intention of allowing ISIS to retreat into the wastelands of western Iraq, to lick its wounds and reload.  Russia's new best friend, Iran, would be the next opponent for ISIS to confront.  In fact, Putin's plan was to confront ISIS in Syria with Assad/Russian support, and simultaneously push ISIS westward from Iraq, using the Iranian Shi'a militias, Iraqi Army, and Iranian military units, if necessary.  Russia has established itself militarily in Syria, as planned, but Iran has to negotiate its way through a bit of a diplomatic triangle in Iraq.  The United States continues to have instructors imbedded with the Iraqi Army, and the U.S.-led air coalition remains active, conducting daily sorties against ISIS targets.  Iran's plan is to support the Iraq Army and its Iranian-backed militia partners in action separate from Iraqi Army efforts which involve the U.S., with the intention that one effort will be successful and the other will fail.  Currently, the U.S.-supported effort by the Iraqi Army to retake Ramadi appears to be failing, while the recent militia-supported operation to retake Baiji and its important oil refinery was successful.  This occurred on the heels of an announcement of the creation of a joint communication cell in Baghdad between the Russians, Iraqis, and Iranians.  Putin is convinced that once Iraqi military initiatives directly supported by U.S. personnel fail, that the Obama Administration will throw in the towel.  He is betting on the likelihood that a failure in Ramadi will lead to demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Iraq.  Once the U.S. is out, then Iran will "lead" the Iraqi Army, militias, and Iranian Special Forces/Republican Guard units in confrontation with ISIS.

Putin's long-term strategy is that by defeating ISIS, Russia and Iran will increase their influence, Russia internationally, and Iran regionally.  Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict has removed the eyes of the west from Ukraine, allowing Putin to forget that within the last two years, Russia has annexed Crimea, an integral part of the Republic of Ukraine, and that Russian military equipment was responsible for the tragic destruction of a civilian airliner and the murder of hundreds of innocent people.  Putin has changed the topic of international conversation.  Today, the world is focused on Syria and the continuing refugee problem, which provides Putin with more justification for military involvement in Syria.  Someone has to do something; if not Russia, then who?  The United States is totally reactive in its international relations, and the current administration does not have the stomach for military casualties.  Certainly a united military force created by the various EU nations would handle ISIS without much difficulty, but that option has never even been suggested.  Russia had an invitation to take on ISIS, and Iran will have the opportunity to become the dominant nation in the Persian Gulf region because of its impending involvement in the destruction of ISIS.

Russia taking advantage of disinterested Obama Administration to project military strength internationally.

In the last few months, Russia has aggressively extended its military footprint around the globe.  While most eyes are focused on Russian military action in Syria, Moscow has completed construction on a military facility in the Arctic, and stepped up diplomatic efforts vis-a-vis Baghdad, Cuba, and the United Nations.  Everytime that Russia succeeds in extending its military influence, the United States suffers accordingly.  Russia's move to establish s military base in the Arctic comes on the heels of discoveries that the vast frozen areas north of the Arctic Circle hold great potential for mineral and fossil fuel exploration.  Researchers and businesses in the United States have also expressed interest in Arctic resource exploration, but the Obama Administration has responded to such entreaties with suspicion and concern regarding the potential ecological impact.  Also, the recent rapprochement between the United States and Cuba has apparently not dimmed the close relationship between Moscow and Havana.  Many expect Cuba to lead the proposed Russian military "coalition" in Syria.  Presently, this coalition can count Iran, pro-regime Syria, Hezbollah, and possibly Belarus as members; many consider this grouping of Russian allies to be a counter to the U.S. coalition already in place in Syria.

A number of U.S. allies are beginning to discreetly express concern over the apparent apathy that appears to dominate the foreign policy of the United States in the later period of the Obama Presidency.  Since the election of 2008, most European leaders have been quick to support the Obama Aministration's policies, with the crises in Ukraine and Syria being two prime examples.  But as the failure of these policies become more apparent, and Obama seems unwilling to stand up and confront increased Russian global activity, certain European leaders are reviewing what options might be available that do not require the presence of the United States government in a leadership role.  No doubt our allies outside of Europe are also concerned about the lack of movement on the part of the United States.  China must also recognize that an opportunity currently exists, and will assuredly take advantage as well, while Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Australia wonder if the status quo can hold until a new administration takes over in Washington DC.

At present, more so than at any point in the last seven years, the United States needs to be an international leader.  This administration was quick to mobilize its diplomatic resources to conclude terrible treaties with both Russia (2010 New Start disarmament treaty with Russia), and Iran (2015 agreement on Iranian nuclear research).  Given that our allies are simply waiting for some sign of strength and consistency, it's not too late to check Vladimit Putin's strategy to create in Russia the world's sole super-power.  A fascinating aspect of these developments is that Russia's aggressive military and diplomatic moves have come while the Obama Administration continues to characterize Russia's economy as being close to collapse.  It seems as is if we've been waiting for that collapse ever since the beginning of the sanctions regime that was imposed on Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.  I'm glad we weren't holding our breath.....

Assad taking full advantage of Russian airpower to hammer internal opposition, regain lost territory.

Link: Russian airstrikes aimed at supporting Syrian regime offensive.

In an interview with state-run Russian media, Vladimir Putin concedes that Russia's intervention in Syria is intended to "stabilize the legitimate government" of de facto President Bashar al-Assad.  Only from Putin's perspective can the rule of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Ba'ath Party be considered legitimate.  Just how unpopular with the Syrian people is Assad?  Before the arrival of opportunistic ISIS on the Syrian battlefield, Assad had more than a dozen internal opposition groups that had taken up arms to remove him from power.  In the beginning, there was hope that Assad would fall as quickly as the other despots during the Arab Spring, but infighting amongst the opposition, which included the sometimes-difficult Kurds, allowed Assad to survive one military defeat after another.  The battlefield losses sustained by regime forces culminated in the capture by ISIS of Tabqa Air Force Base and at least two MIG 21B fighters in late August 2014.  Putin's strategy to focus on the Syrian opposition as opposed to ISIS supports two goals.  Assad has unleashed an offensive in northwest Syria in support of the vocal Alawite minority that has long been a loyal supporter, and Russian airpower has been laying waste to Syrian opposition positions standing in the way of the regime offensive.  More importantly, Putin is taking advantage of the current malaise in Washington DC to decimate the only U.S. allies on the ground in Syria.  If Putin had elected to conduct a more balanced air campaign, with equal number of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra targets as Syrian opposition, then opposition to Russia's action might have had time to coalesce.  The U.S. Congress may have gotten involved, given the amount of taxpayer's money that has been spent on the Syrian opposition which is now getting blown to pieces by Russian bombs.  Putin astutely reckoned that even Obama would be forced to act eventually, so he is destroying the organized opposition to Assad first, so that after ISIS has been defeated, Russian puppet Assad will be the only player left standing.  Putin was not about to sacrifice Russian troops and airpower to destroy ISIS, only to watch the Syrian people rally in support of Assad's opposition.  By the time the Russian Air Force is finished, there will no longer be a Syrian opposition.

The Russians realize that they may be facing a shrinking window.  Not surprisingly, the raggedy bunch of cutthroats that identifies itself as an secessionist movement in Ukraine, has clammed up as of late.  It would appear that Putin does not want to antagonize the Ukrainian military while Russian resources are tied up elsewhere.  Sure the Russians have more than enough equipment and soldiers to conduct military operations on separate fronts, but wars cost money, and with the Russian economy already in tatters, Putin would like to avoid having to finance the new enterprise in Syria while continuing to subsidize the rebellion in Ukraine.  According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Russian Air Force conducted over 250 strikes in between 9-12 October.  In contrast, on October 8, the Russians only flew 20 missions in Syria.  Putin has a timetable, but he can't be certain just how much time he will have, before someone in the west decides to call his bluff.  

Affghanistan: the Taliban launches broad, coordinated offensive in nine northern districts.

Link: Taliban offensive in northern Afghanistan.

I can't recall the last time I devoted an entire post to Afghanistan.  I've been living in a cycle of world events that includes only Syria, Iraq, Iran and Ukraine.  I admit its nice to focus on a different topic, but the Taliban, who are responsible for the relocation of my attention, won't be receiving a thank you card.  In 2011 President Obama ordered the withdrawal of 10,000 U.S. troops, and another 23,000 were removed in 2012.  The United States continues to keep 10,000 mostly Special Forces troops in country, in an effort to both train and bolster the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).  Prior to 2011, the Taliban had for the most part lost its authority in Afghanistan.  Even in areas traditionally loyal to the Taliban, the government was making inroads building schools and introducing technology.  There was hope that the Taliban was gone for good, and with the Taliban goes Al-Qaeda.  Not surprisingly, the Taliban still existed, but was hunkered down, patiently waiting for the opportunity to return.  The reality is, if the Taliban had been obliged to stay in hibernation for an extended period of time, and some of the more grizzled, fanatical leaders had died, the organization itself very well may have disappeared.  But the extremists know us all too well, as was demonstrated in the deserts of Western Iraq at about the same time.  The Taliban understood that a political change had occurred in Washington DC, and the new man in charge wanted to pull the U.S. military out of Afghanistan as quickly as politically expedient.  Their job was to be patient, because without a doubt, the ANSF would eventually collapse, as they had in the past.  Once the U.S. began withdrawing from Afghanistan, the Taliban slowly began to re-emerge.  The more troops withdrawn, the more attacks by the Taliban on Afghan military or government targets.  Of course, the withdrawal in Iraq was much more precipitous; the Iraqi Army was in no way ready to take the field in battle.  This information wasn't confidential, and ISIS immediately took advantage by crossing into the western deserts of Iraq from Syria, and beginning an offensive that would take them to the gates of Tikrit.  The rejuvenation of the Taliban has taken a bit more time, as U.S. and NATO forces continue to provide support to the ANSF.

The recent military advances by the Taliban involve nine northern provinces of Afghanistan, and comes on the heels of the occupation of Kunduz.  Its fascinating how some of the events in Iraq seem to mirror events in Afghanistan.  Just as the Iraqi forces attempted to retake Ramadi bit by bit after it initially fell to ISIS, the ANSF are trying to regain Kunduz one neighborhood at a time.  And just as ISIS took advantage of the focus on Ramadi to expand their presence to areas north, south, and east of Baghdad, the Taliban is using the capture of Kunduz as a jumping-off point for further offensive activity in northern Afghanistan.  The re-emergence of the Taliban is no great surprise, and was discussed as a real possibility on a regular basis in the media.  Frankly speaking, their strength and level of organization and military sophistication are a bit of a surprise to us.  The amount of territory involved in this broad attack is very discouraging, and brings into question the long-term security of the capital city.  Once before, President Obama increased troop levels in Afghanistan; would he consider doing so, this late in his term?  Don't hold your breath.  What happens in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and even sad-and-forgotten Ukraine, will involve the U.S. only as long as diplomacy is involved.  The U.S. may continue the Coalition Air Campaign, but that is as far as it goes.  Until a new president is sworn in, the U.S. will not involve ground forces in a foreign conflict.  

It begins: Russian disinformation campaign, now a fixture in the Ukrainian crisis, arrives in Syria.

Link: Russians targeting Syrian regime opposition as opposed to ISIS.

As Russia begins its military campaign in Syria, the international community is discovering the reality behind President Vladimir Putin's motivations.  Putin has cloaked his intervention in Syria as a decision to destroy ISIS and end the civilian casualties and refugees that have resulted from the conflict.  Excuse the cliché, but it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to determine that Putin is targeting ISIS, but only as it is part and parcel of the operation to save the Russian puppet regime of de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  Since it will be necessary to destroy ISIS in order to save Assad's skin, Russia, which is slowly unveiling is strategy to use its ally Iran to pressure ISIS from the east, the Russian military machine will eventually get around to targeting ISIS forces.  But ISIS was a bit "Johnny-come-lately" to the Syrian conflict.  Readers will recall that an evolving, determined opposition to the Assad regime was in place and making progress, albeit at a less-than intimidating pace, before ISIS began its main offensive operations in Syria.  It should come as no surprise that the first targets of Russia's military fist are the Syrian opposition groups who are fighting the despotic and decrepit Syrian Ba'ath Party and Bashar al-Assad.  Russian jets launched bombing sorties against the opposition-held community of Talbisah in northern Homs Governorate, with the official death count at thirty-three so far.  Like an old friend, the Russian disinformation machine immediately announced the successful initial bombing raids "against ISIS targets".  Just how do you say, "bullshit" in Russian?

For those of you who haven't been following the Ukraine crisis closely, you will soon get to know the Russian media campaign and its bellicose sycophants.  These political activists masquerading as journalists are still trying to blame the United States and the Ukrainian Air Force for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17), even though western media was able to disseminate photographs of the Russian-made Buk Surface to Air Missile System (initially, the Russian press announced that that two Ukrainian Air Force jets, with the help of U.S. radar, had purposely targeted and destroyed MH17; when that theory and its doctored photographic "evidence" was laughed off the front pages, others were proffered, including that the Ukrainians THEMSELVES used a Buk to shoot down the civilian airliner).  Since the West has had enough time to forget the crash site photographs of mangled children and personal belongings, the same media machine is now engaged in blaming every aggressive action taken by the Ukrainian separatists as a provocation on the part of Ukraine.  In a short conversation I had with a Ukrainian journalist out of Kiev, he made the interesting point that the Russian media covering the Ukrainian conflict could not claim even one accurate storyline on its behalf, since the crisis began.  Because the western press feels some obligation to present both sides of an issue, we always get the Russian version of events, usually just after the truth has been reported.  Be prepared; the Russian media is an arm of the Putin regime and will only disseminate information, accurate or not, that subscribes to the desired storyline.

Now that we realize that Putin is going to thrash with a vengeance even those opposition groups who are pro-Democracy and only wanting the removal of Assad, what impact will this have on U.S. policy?  On one hand, the Obama Administration refused to agree to Russian demands that the U.S. suspend the Coalition Air Campaign, but on the other hand, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States would welcome Russian airstrikes, if they are targeting ISIS positions.  At this stage, I'm almost sympathetic to John Kerry, given the totally reactive policy he is forced to defend.  Did the Obama Administration consider Russian intervention, and if so, what was the intended response?  Since we haven't seen a response, only reactionary commentary, we can only surmise that a plan doesn't exist.  Given recent Russian maneuvers in Iraq, which appear to create a military communication network between Russia, Iran and the Iranian-backed Shi'a militias, has the Obama Administration given consideration to full Iranian military intervention in Iraq, supported by Russia?  What would be an acceptable response to that development?  I don't have an answer to that question.   

Incoherent, ineffective U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq continues to create opportunity for Iran and Russia.

Links: A. Putin steps up rhetoric against the West.
           B. Russia, Iran and Iraq set up military joint coordination cell.

Everyday the media presents the international community with another example of motivated, well-planned Russian activity vis-à-vis Syria and Iraq.  Three weeks ago, the Russians announced their intention to become directly militarily involved in Syria, and since that time every day brings additional evidence of the arrival in Syria of Russian troops, personnel accommodation, artillery, mobile surface-to-air units, tanks, and air resources.  Week-by-week, northeastern Syria, so recently threatened by both ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, becomes more militarized; soon we can expect to see Russian jets flying sorties against ISIS positions.  Putin has already demanded that the Allied Air Coalition, led by the United States, must coordinate its activities with Russia, although he made no mention of advising the Pentagon regarding Russian military deployments in Syria.  Interestingly, the Russians are becoming more active in Iraq, having the confidence to openly announce the creation of a joint military coordination cell.  Given that the Russians have recently started construction on two large military bases on the border with Ukraine, and that negotiations are underway for the creation of a Russian Air Base in Belarus, the events we are witnessing are obviously part of a much broader, long-term strategy which is aimed at eclipsing the United States as the world superpower, and they couldn't have asked for a more compliant U.S. president.

Putin has managed to push Ukraine completely off of the headlines, which is one goal achieved, and his willingness to accept the mantle of "defender of the west" against ISIS will do wonders in reforming his image in Europe.  The Russian diplomatic maneuvers, including the establishment of the Baghdad military coordination cell, alongside the relaxation of tension in Ukraine and the building of military bases, obviously point to the existence of a much more intensive Russian agenda.  Putin has signed on with Iran, who will play a pivotal role in the new world that Putin envisions.  Russia has fought hard in the United Nations on Iran's behalf.  Any one of a dozen efforts to punish Iran for violating international treaty regarding their nuclear research, could have put the Iranians back another decade from their end goal.  But Russia stepped in as they always do when creating a client state (see Hafez al-Assad and Syria), and blocked any real effort to bring the Iranians into compliance.  Russia realized that it was only time until Barack Obama, in search of a "Legacy" event, would step up and lead the emasculated Europeans right into a Treaty with Iran which requires nothing of Tehran, and gives them what they most need: not continued nuclear research, but access to the international arms market sans sanctions.  Now that Russia has declared her intentions in Syria (to defeat ISIS), Turkey and the United States had better be prepared for the damage coming vis-à-vis the proposed "ISIS-free zone".  Turkey will give Russia a free-hand in Syria for the moment, in order to not compromise the all-important natural gas pipeline plan, even though watching Assad use up another one of his nine lives must be driving Erdogan bananas.  And the United States?  As long as Obama is in office, Putin, Iran and Russia have an open playing field.  You see, Obama will not take any action that might endanger his legacy nuclear treaty with Iran.  He knows that many Iranians, especially in the religious extremist community, are opposed to any treaty with "The Great Satan".  He will not approve any diplomatic or military action that might offend the Iranians.

There can be no doubt that Russia intends to make martyrs out of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.  Expect Iranian activity in Iraq to increase dramatically in the next few months, with the possibility of Iranian troops either swelling the ranks of the militias incognito, or with the intrusion into Iraq of the Iranian Army at the invitation of the Iraqi govt.  Very soon the political stalemate in Baghdad will work itself out, with one of three outcomes: first, the Abadi govt. holds firm, but the failure of the Iranian Security Forces in Ramadi and the real threat to the capital posed by ISIS compels Abadi to welcome Iranian military involvement; second, Abadi falls and is replaced by a compliant, pro-Iranian govt., which immediately begins to cross the Iran/Iraq border; or third, the Iranians just do as the wish and cross the border on their own schedule, as the United States won't complain much.  The next month will probably provide an ample supply of fireworks, and demonstrate just how prostrate the United States has become internationally.

  

Conservative factions in Ukraine increasing pressure on Poroshenko.

Link: Violence between right-wing protesters and police outside Kiev Parliament.

The announcement by Ukrainian officials of a ceasefire with separatists has resulted in angry demonstrations from conservative and right-wing protesters outside of Parliament in the capital city of Kiev.  The conservative political groups in Ukraine have traditionally been strong, and the crisis in the east of the country has only added to their influence.  Ukrainians living in the west of the country are particularly incensed with the lack of progress in combatting the separatists, and the shaky coalition that President Petro Poroshenko requires to stay in power is under great pressure.  Conservative Ukrainians were not satisfied with the provisions of the "Minsk II" agreement, which really never got off the ground, because the separatists began violating the agreement almost as soon as it was announced.  Some of the more controversial provisions of "Minsk II" never saw the light if day, until now, when they were repeated as part of the new ceasefire agreement, scheduled to begin on Tuesday, September 1.  The Ukrainian right-wing objects to the agreement for declaring a "special status" for the disputed areas, and also for introducing the idea of autonomy to the negotiations.  On the other hand, the government claims that the ceasefire agreement only calls for the decentralization of authority, designed to give more power to local government.  In reality, the demonstrations in Kiev were coming, sooner or later, as Conservative Ukrainians grow more dissatisfied everyday with the current situation in the east.  The number of Ukrainian troops in the east is almost matched by the number of volunteers, who have picked up weapons and transported themselves to the front line, "to fight for the freedom and integrity of Ukraine", as one protester explained.  Poroshenko and his EU puppet masters must understand that this outpouring of rejection is not only in response to this latest ceasefire agreement, but also a message that the people of Ukraine do not believe in any more treaties with the separatists.

Since the genesis of this crisis, every agreement with the Russian-backed separatists has been violated by the rebels.  Actually, the modus operandi of this movement mirrors typical fascist behavior.  Violate every agreement, but continue to sign them, as long as the enemy is stupid enough to continue negotiating under the pretense of "good faith".  While the separatists continually violate agreements, the Russians keep lying about the involvement of the Russian military and use of Russian equipment.  The obscene fact that even after the overwhelming amount of evidence, the Russian government and the separatists still refuse to admit that a Russian "Buk" missile destroyed Malaysian Airlines flight 17 (MH17), killing all 298 on board.  in July 2015, a draft resolution to set up an international tribunal into the MH17 air disaster was put before the United Nations Security Council.  Malaysia had requested a tribunal to take place, but the proposal was blocked by a Russian veto.  It was the only nation on the 15-member UN Security Council to oppose the request.  There can be only one reason why the Russian government would oppose an investigation by the world's leading experts on the subject: to hide its complicity.  We don't believe the Russians themselves fired at the airliner.  We are convinced that the basically untrained separatist volunteers who were manning the Buk missile launcher, mistook the airliner for a large Ukrainian Air Force cargo plane, a hypothesis which is supported by evidence, including recorded cell phone conversations from one separatist unit to another.

The citizens of Ukraine who are opposed to the current agreement stood by Poroshenko for some time.  He was a sympathetic figure, attempting to do his best to appease the European and U.S. governments, and also continuing to look strong in the face of Russian aggression first in Crimea, and then in Donbas.  Poroshenko was forced to walk a tricky tight rope.  From his perspective, Ukraine would be lost without the steadfast support of Europe and the United States; therefore, if France, Germany and the Obama Administration advised compromise, then Poroshenko would compromise.  Hollande, Merkel and Obama told Poroshenko that the Russians would eventually be obliged to back down, because the sanctions regime was going to cripple the Russian economy.  As we predicted last year on this blog, Putin never had any intention of backing down because of the sanctions.  He understood as we did; that the Russian people take particular offense at that type of punishment.  The Russians are made of tougher stuff than that.  They won't be made to compromise because a few items disappear off the shelves and everyone has to tighten their belt a bit.  So the sanctions have failed, and Poroshenko has authorized negotiators in Minsk to compromise with the separatists and Russians, as directed by the Europeans and Americans.  What was the result?  Two agreements that were violated by the separatists before the paint was dry.  In the last year, the separatists have expanded the territory under their control, to include the strategic town of Debaltseve.  There has been no offensive activity on the part of the Ukrainian Army, not really.

So its clear why most Ukrainians have lost faith in Poroshenko and why demonstrators were protesting in Kiev.  Its not just for this terrible agreement, but for the previous two which were violated, and for the failed sanctions regime, which was supposed to force Russia to compromise.  Putin is winning this chess game hands down, because Europe and the United States are too frightened to allow Ukraine to take any Russian pieces.  Earlier this year, we called for the United States to begin providing weapons to the Ukrainian Army, including F16s and Abrams tanks if necessary.  The Ukrainian people have no love-lost for the Russians, and they have already watched Putin steal the Crimea right from under their nose.  They are anxious to settle this issue on the battlefield, but the Obama Administration has hamstrung the Ukrainian Armed Forces by refusing to sell them weapons and equipment.  Why don't the Ukrainians just go to someone else to get weapons?  Because everyone else who is not in Russia's orbit, is following the lead of the United States.  Its a tremendously depressing situation.  Poroshenko would probably like to be more militarily aggressive, but to be so would probably cost him the support of France, Germany and the United States.  We expect the Ukrainian people to bring about another change in government, which may result in full deployment of the Ukrainian military to eastern Ukraine for the purpose of ending the illegal separatist movement.  But if the Russian military becomes directly involved, the Ukrainians will be hard-pressed to keep up, without an influx of new equipment and supplies.  The end of this drama will probably result in a new Ukraine, minus the industrial southwest.  And Putin will be man of the year in Sevastopol and Donetsk.

Ukraine and Russian- backed Donbas separatists are negotiating a complete ceasefire to begin on September 1.

Link: Cease fire in Ukraine planned for 1 September.

Here we go again.  For the third time in the past two years, France and Germany have assisted in the crafting of a ceasefire agreement between Ukraine and Russian-backed Donbas separatists.  According to negotiators, the ceasefire is a blanket agreement in which both sides unilaterally agree to end the discharge of weapons in eastern Ukraine on September 1, 2015.  Up until the very minute of the announcement of the intended ceasefire, separatist forces had escalated attacks against Ukrainian troops, killing two soldiers less than ten miles outside of the strategic port city of Mariupol.  This attack comes one week after a separatist artillery barrage killed three civilians in a suburb of Mariupol.  On August 10, a separatist combined arms assault east of the Donetsk-Mariupol highway, in conjunction with an increase in separatist shelling of Ukrainian-held areas outside Mariupol, indicate that the Russian-backed separatists have set the table nicely for this most recent negotiated ceasefire.  You see, each time the negotiators reach the more difficult issues at hand, the separatists increase offensive activity, as a means of influencing the diplomatic proceedings.  By raising the level of military activity, the separatists are sending the clear message that they are nowhere near backing down, and it would be in Kiev's best interest to compromise.  You would think that after two ceasefires that were violated by the separatists almost immediately, that the Ukrainians and their European allies would be reticent to enter into another agreement.  But Poroshenko has absolutely no wiggle room.  Basically, he has to do what is told.  Without the support of France, Germany, and the United States, Poroshenko knows that Ukraine would be invaded by Russia in the blink of an eye.  The real question, which has been asked so many time over the past few decades and has never received an adequate explanation, is why the leaders of Europe are so intent on placating aggressive dictators who are fully intent on expansionist enterprises?

On September 1, the latest ceasefire (Minsk III?) will be implemented.  Because the provisions contained within are so favorable to the separatists, it is likely that we won't see a violation for some time.  You see, the new agreement calls for elections, and also mandates the establishment of a special self-management status for separatist-minded regions.  What is so fascinating is that until Russia started expressing real annoyance at Ukraine's insistence on being an independent nation, there was no "eastern Ukraine separatist movement".  For the past decade, Ukraine has tweaked Moscow's nose on a number of occasions, and the cozying up to NATO and the United States was probably the last straw (or was it the popular removal of a president who was acting as a Russian puppet?).  Putin didn't try and create a nationalist, pro-Russian movement in Crimea; he just gauged the complete lack of spine amongst the European leaders and the United States.  The annexation of Crimea was a marvelously orchestrated "fait d'accompli" on the part of Putin; but it did get the attention of the international community, so  justification had to be created for the biting off of eastern Ukraine.

I'm sure the OSCE will deploy observers whenever elections take place in the disputed regions, and no doubt the separatists will hound and harass them so that it is impossible to validate the electoral process.  Why will the separatists do this?  Because they can.  Even if the election observers were able to verify extensive electoral fraud, what would be the end result?  Nothing.  Probably within six months after the elections occur, the separatists will kick the military campaign back into gear, to swallow up the next piece of free Ukraine, which more than likely will include the city of Mariupol.  We will repeat the same process, with Merkel and Hollande pressuring Poroshenko to agree to more demands.  The only hope for a free and democratic Ukraine will be if the Ukrainian people rise up and remove Poroshenko, and replace him with someone who is willing to tell the west to go suck an egg.  Unfortunately, this will create the military environment that Putin is waiting for: an under-equipped Ukrainian military facing off against the Russian Armed Forces.  And the EU and the United States will stand back and say, "we tried to get the Ukrainians to negotiate, but they were determined to follow another course".   My prognostication is probably way off base, but it doesn't take Henry Kissinger to see that Putin has manipulated this crisis in a manner that guarantees some level of success.  God forbid that the European nations are ever faced with the decision to fight for their freedom, or become the slaves of a group like ISIS.  I fear for the decision that will be made.       

France, Germany pressure Kiev to grant autonomy to separatists, as conflict escalates.

Link: Poroshenko meets with Hollande, Merkel in Berlin.

Today, Ukrainian President Poroshenko traveled to Berlin for consultations with German Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande to discuss the rapidly unravelling "Minsk II" accord.  As anticipated, in recent days, separatist forces have launched numerous attacks against Ukrainian positions.  On August 10, separatists used tanks and heavy artillery in an attack on Ukrainian forces 20 kilometers east of the Donetsk-Mariupol Highway, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitoring installations continue to track "Grad" multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) strikes along much of the frontline in Donetsk Oblast.  On August 16, separatists launched an artillery barrage on the northeastern outskirts of Mariupol.  It is widely suspected that the upturn in violence is an effort on the part of the separatists to influence Kiev, as negotiations continue in Minsk and now also in Berlin.  The Russian-backed separatists hope that the more pessimistic the current military situation appears, the more likely that Kiev will be more flexible when it comes to negotiating the issue of autonomy for Donbas.

It is also widely accepted that both Hollande and Merkel will pressure Poroshenko to yield on the issue of autonomy for Donbas.  Again, just another example of the complete lack of conviction and courage on the part of European leaders when faced with military aggression.  If history has taught us anything, it is that a bully, regardless of the size of the playground, will continue to terrorize until he is confronted by a united opposition.  Poroshenko has no choice but to follow the advice of his benefactors (I would include President Obama on this list, but I'm not really sure where he has been lately...probably putting the final touches on his Amnesty Executive Order Action); without the continued support of Europe and the United States, Ukraine would be totally occupied by the Russian Army by the end of next week.  Back to the present: if Poroshenko grants autonomy to Donbas (without a plebiscite, mind you....shades of Austria, 1938), no doubt the separatists and Russia will control whatever elections come next, and those "elected" will uniformly support the annexation of Donbas by Russia.  Remember this blog post from August 21, 2015: if Poroshenko approves any form of autonomy for sections of Eastern Ukraine, those areas will eventually be swallowed up by Russia, a la Crimea.

Why are the European leaders so reticent to militarily confront Putin?  They must realize that this is a problem they will be forced to deal with sooner or later, and later will always be more difficult.  If the EU decided to support Ukraine militarily, and German, Polish, French and Italian Air Forces enforced a no-fly zone over Ukraine, Putin would be obliged to either back off, or actually go to war.  I don't believe the Russian Air Force is in any state of readiness to confront the combined Air resources of Europe and the United States.  Also, why not "loan" Ukraine a few hundred LeClerc Heavy Battle Tanks, and maybe a few Leopard as well.  This will be akin to the leaders of free and democratic Europe drawing a line in the dirt, and telling Putin, "you've gone far enough; don't cross this line".  If I were Poroshenko, I would ask Hollande to imagine what it must have been like for France when Germany "stole" Alsace-Lorraine in 1871?  Or remind Chancellor Merkel of Russia's stranglehold on East Germany.  Allowing a foreign country to invade and occupy Ukrainian territory should be unacceptable not only to Poroshenko, but to the EU as well.  Our position on this issue is not unique; many other blogs and learned analysts are warning that Russia will not stop its efforts at expansion with the annexation of Donbas, anymore than Putin quit with Crimea (which, considering how little it is mentioned by Hollande and Merkel, is obviously a Fait Accompli).  When will they learn?

Ukraine separatists take full advantage of Minsk negotiations; France cancels Russian warship purchase.

Link: France cancels Russian warship order.


While pro-Ukrainian demonstrators in Mariupol argue against making concessions during the latest round of negotiations in Minsk, separatists continue to accuse the Ukrainian military of double-dealing.  The issue at hand deals with the withdrawal of heavy weapons and tanks from sensitive areas.  The negotiations have reached the point at which anything that the Ukraine agrees to will be manipulated for press consumption; how the participants on the Kiev side can continue to negotiate in good faith is a mystery to us.  The separatists regularly violated the Minsk II agreement to withdraw heavy weapons from contested areas, but for some reason current negotiators are discussing the same issue, with the idea that the separatists will, for some reason, decide to abide by the agreement this time.  Every effort on behalf of both the separatists and the Russian government is intended to further the determination to dismember the Ukrainian state as we know it.  The frustration expressed by the numerous nationalist groups in Kiev, Mariupol, Odessa, Lvov, and other Ukrainian cities, is beginning to put tremendous pressure on the government of President Petro Poroshenko.  The current government in Kiev has shown incredible restraint, taking great care to not upset its European and U.S. allies.  Unfortunately for Poroshenko, his popularity is in free-fall as the Ukrainian public grows increasingly frustrated at the lack of direct military support from Europe and the Obama Administration.  The crisis in Donbas is no closer to being resolved than it was at the commencement of the original Minsk negotiations.  No doubt the separatists consider the subject of national boundaries to be an issue of occupation.  At this stage, its hard to imagine Ukraine returning to its pre-conflict borders.

In 2011, Russia and France negotiated the purchase by Russia of two French Mistral-class amphibious assault ships.  The delivery of the ships was on schedule, when the Ukrainian conflict intervened.  The French government decided to review its decision to sell the modern warships, following Russia's obvious military support for the Donbas separatists.  The decision to reconsider the sale was controversial for both the French and the Russians.  The French weapons industry was anxious for the positive press that would accompany the on-schedule delivery of the warships, not to mention the financial windfall.  And the Russian military is determined to upgrade and modernize its amphibious capabilities.  Regardless, on Wednesday the French government, after lengthly deliberation, decided to cancel the contract and all payments to Russia.  The Russian foreign ministry has responded as anticipated, accusing the French of illegally breaking the contract.  This development will probably negatively impact the French arms industry temporarily, but the French are always in the forefront of developing new military hardware, and in the end, Paris will have its usual backlog of defense industry orders from international customers.

Spying in the 21st Century; counter-terrorism, diplomacy, and economic espionage.

Our world has changed dramatically in the last five decades.  We have enjoyed a renaissance in technology, with the internet changing lives and medical research making discoveries to help people will illnesses and injuries live a more productive, happy life.  Unfortunately the world has also become a much more dangerous place.  Terrorism made its original rude introduction in the early 1960's, and then tapered off a bit, before that eventful day in September of 2001.  Since then, the word, "terrorism" seems to be included in every newscast, and part of almost every travel advisory.  When terrorists were almost exclusively focused on Israel, the battle lines were simple to demarcate.  Today, we live in a world that is slowly being transformed by the actions of Islamic Extremists.  The Obama Administration is determined to not label the bad guys as Muslim Extremists, for fear of appearing "Islam phobic", an unfortunate complication in the efforts to combat groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.  At the moment, the United States is not technically at war, although our Air Force is heavily involved in the allied air coalition against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  Another danger we face in the world today is the rebirth of nationalist and expansionist Russia.  Although we support Ukraine diplomatically and have spearheaded the sanctions regime against Russia, our military has not been directly involved in that conflict.  So are we at peace?

The answer is no, and we haven't been for sometime.  You see, even when the soldiers are stateside and the diplomats are making nice with each other, another conflict is being waged in the shadows.  All nations are involved in espionage in one form or another, and the more industrialized, populous states are constantly looking for new ways to improve the art.  The United States is primarily interested in intelligence for national security purposes, which makes terrorism a priority target for the CIA, NSA, and the intelligence gathering apparati of the Departments of Defense and Justice.  Next on the list is probably China, who has created a tremendously advanced and complicated network of spying, utilizing scholars, businessmen, and researchers to both collect on and occasionally subvert the United States in numerous ways.  Russia is also a high-priority collecting target, especially since the arrival of Vladimir Putin and a return to cold-war type aggressive activities.  The U.S. government remains highly interested in information regarding narcotics and counter-intelligence.  A priority target that does not get its deserved share of attention is economics.  The major economies of the world, even the ones who appear to be very closely aligned, are all in the business of collecting confidential information regarding economics and international business. In fact, it makes complete sense.  The health of our nation's economy has to be included in national security concerns, and the Chinese in particular seem to be determined to outmaneuver everyone in this area.

Why are the Chinese so successful at espionage?  The truth is, they haven't always been good at spying.  But once China and the United States started regular bilateral relations, and Chinese university students and researchers were invited to the U.S. to study and do research, the Chinese saw an opportunity to exploit our openness to gather confidential and at times top secret information.  The larger, more prestigious U.S. colleges seem to compete for visiting Chinese scholars.  Unfortunately, many of these universities have received contracts from the Department of Defense to work on highly classified programs.  On more than one occasion, Chinese students have been discovered in possession of internet connections that are active only between the Chinese mainland and the student's personal laptop.  Our own experts have been unable to break into the conversation between the student and Beijing for a number of reasons, including the complexity/security firewalls of the program being used, and the opposition of the respective university's administration from what they perceive as being "action which will discourage future Chinese scholars from wanted to study here."  Can you imagine a student having access to a lab computer, downloading classified information onto a disk, then returning to their  dorm room to send the information to China, without us ever knowing exactly what was being transmitted?

Back to economic espionage.  Its not just a war between China and the United States; the European nations are also interested in getting a "heads-up" on the intentions of our international companies and investors.  For example, the European conglomerate "Airbus", which manufactures airliners with parts from a number of different EU countries, is in regular, fierce completion with Boeing for new airliner orders.  The United States has economic rivalries in the Defense Industry as well.  Germany, France, the UK, Russia, Italy and Spain all manufacture and export military hardware of one sort or another.  Even South Africa goes head to head with the U.S., when it comes to anti-riot vehicles and helicopters.  To have confidential information regarding a foreign competitor's progress on a competitive product can be invaluable, and nations have started training Intelligence Officers to be focused on the business community for the duration of their career.  Many times these Intelligence Officers will utilize Businessman cover in order to gain access to confidential information.  The United States and France wrote the book on this type of espionage, and they continue to this day to practice it more effectively than anyone else.

Espionage has evolved quite a bit in the last few years, let alone last five decades.  So much intelligence collection has been directed towards force protection, other typical areas of interest have suffered.  But the major powers still manage to cover all their bases and go after the terrorist target together.  The joint intel ops that are becoming more and more commonplace just might be the precursor to something much more meaningful: an Intelligence Service that represents more than just one nation.  I assume that the EU has already broken ground in that regard.